P. v. Pittman
Filed 4/26/06 P. v. Pittman CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT D. PITTMAN, Defendant and Appellant. |
F048369
(Super. Ct. No. BF109481)
O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Kenneth C. Twisselman II, Judge.
Paul E. Lacy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, and Harry J. Colombo, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
A jury found Robert Pittman (Appellant) received stolen property (Pen. Code,[1] § 496, subd. (a); count 1), committed second degree burglary (§ 460, subd. (b); count 2), and passed a forged check (§ 470, subd. (d); count 3). The trial court subsequently determined Appellant served three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and sentenced him to a total of six years imprisonment. Appellant contends the trial court erred by failing to stay punishment for the burglary and forgery counts, and by imposing upper prison terms without submitting the aggravating factors to the jury. We agree with the Attorney General that the trial court should have stayed punishment for forgery, but not buglary, and find no error with the trial court imposing the upper terms.
BACKGROUND
Shannon Lee Buck's purse and checkbook were stolen on February 23, 2005. Two days later, Buck received a telephone call from her Bakersfield bank informing her Appellant was attempting to cash one of her stolen checks for $300. Both Buck and the bank employee telephoned the police.
Bakersfield Police Officer Aaron Stringer arrested Appellant at the bank and informed him of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436. Appellant explained his friend Buford asked him to cash the check because he had found a ring and the owner wanted to give him a $300 reward, but Buford did not have any identification. Officer Stringer asked Appellant if he knew the check was stolen before entering the bank; Appellant responded, â€
